High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
State of Haryana v. Tarsem - CRM-346-MA-2006  RD-P&H 9867 (6 November 2006)
Criminal Misc No. 346-MA of 2006
Date of Decision :- November 9, 2006.
State of Haryana Versus Tarsem
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALDEV SINGH
Present:- Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior D.A.G. Haryana.
MEHTAB S.GILL, J.
Learned counsel for the State has argued that the impugned judgment is the result of mis-appreciation of evidence. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Delay in sending the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory was only an administrative lapse, but not to the extent that the prosecution case should be disbelieved.
Section 50 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as "NDPS Act") was complied with. The prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the State.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment.
SI Virender Singh PW7 has corroborated the statement of ASI Ravinder Kumar PW6 that notice Ex.PE and reply Ex.PE/1 were both taken down at the place of recovery. Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not Criminal Misc No. 346-MA of 2006
complied with. The learned trial Court has rightly held that the accused is an illiterate person and the notice Ex.PE should have been read over and explained to him in front of an independent witness and in his language.
Samples were taken on 3.10.2001 and sent to the Director, FSL Madhuban on 18.10.2001. No explanation is coming from the side of the prosecution as to why the samples were kept in the police custody for 15 days.
We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court.
November 9, 2006 JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.